(05-25-2022 12:10 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be okay if the SB eliminated divisions, yet continued to schedule as though they existed. By that, I mean that I want 6 of the 8 opponents for my school to be against teams that will be in the East division, but if the top two teams are both from the same division, they should be in the championship game.

If the league went divisionless where schools had three annual rivals played five for two years and the remaining five for the next two years, that would defeat a major purpose of the expansion.

I would be concerned if the upcoming scheduling model were replaced where eastern schools are played less often and western schools more often, we would circle back aroumd to the clamoring for the mythical east coast G5 league completely separate from the Sun Belt West.

Eastern schools want to play eastern schools, and Western schools want to play western schools. That's what they're getting, all while maintaining under one conference umbrella. Pretty much everyone is thrilled about it. The league has to be careful how it approaches things.

I think the lowest number of protected rivals you'd see for the Sun Belt is 5 with 1 secondary rival. You play 5 rivals annually, your secondary rival 4 times every 6 years, and everyone else H&H every 6 years. Presumably, all the rivalries would be all matched up within current divisions with the possible exception of USM-Marshall and Troy-Georgia St., and it'll keep travel tight while allowing everyone to play each other a little more frequent than with divisions (H&H every 6 years vs. 7 years). It's not a major change compared to divisions, but it might be a change the Sun Belt could be willing to make. Obviously nothing wrong with what you suggested though.

(05-27-2022 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 12:10 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be okay if the SB eliminated divisions, yet continued to schedule as though they existed. By that, I mean that I want 6 of the 8 opponents for my school to be against teams that will be in the East division, but if the top two teams are both from the same division, they should be in the championship game.

If the league went divisionless where schools had three annual rivals played five for two years and the remaining five for the next two years, that would defeat a major purpose of the expansion.

I would be concerned if the upcoming scheduling model were replaced where eastern schools are played less often and western schools more often, we would circle back aroumd to the clamoring for the mythical east coast G5 league completely separate from the Sun Belt West.

Eastern schools want to play eastern schools, and Western schools want to play western schools. That's what they're getting, all while maintaining under one conference umbrella. Pretty much everyone is thrilled about it. The league has to be careful how it approaches things.

I think the lowest number of protected rivals you'd see for the Sun Belt is 5 with 1 secondary rival. You play 5 rivals annually, your secondary rival 4 times every 6 years, and everyone else H&H every 6 years. Presumably, all the rivalries would be all matched up within current divisions with the possible exception of USM-Marshall and Troy-Georgia St., and it'll keep travel tight while allowing everyone to play each other a little more frequent than with divisions (H&H every 6 years vs. 7 years). It's not a major change compared to divisions, but it might be a change the Sun Belt could be willing to make. Obviously nothing wrong with what you suggested though.

I won’t presume to tell the Sunbelt what to do. But in my opinion it is better to play everyone every 2 years than waiting 6 years to see everyone.

(05-27-2022 11:04 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 12:10 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be okay if the SB eliminated divisions, yet continued to schedule as though they existed. By that, I mean that I want 6 of the 8 opponents for my school to be against teams that will be in the East division, but if the top two teams are both from the same division, they should be in the championship game.

If the league went divisionless where schools had three annual rivals played five for two years and the remaining five for the next two years, that would defeat a major purpose of the expansion.

I would be concerned if the upcoming scheduling model were replaced where eastern schools are played less often and western schools more often, we would circle back aroumd to the clamoring for the mythical east coast G5 league completely separate from the Sun Belt West.

Eastern schools want to play eastern schools, and Western schools want to play western schools. That's what they're getting, all while maintaining under one conference umbrella. Pretty much everyone is thrilled about it. The league has to be careful how it approaches things.

I think the lowest number of protected rivals you'd see for the Sun Belt is 5 with 1 secondary rival. You play 5 rivals annually, your secondary rival 4 times every 6 years, and everyone else H&H every 6 years. Presumably, all the rivalries would be all matched up within current divisions with the possible exception of USM-Marshall and Troy-Georgia St., and it'll keep travel tight while allowing everyone to play each other a little more frequent than with divisions (H&H every 6 years vs. 7 years). It's not a major change compared to divisions, but it might be a change the Sun Belt could be willing to make. Obviously nothing wrong with what you suggested though.

I won’t presume to tell the Sunbelt what to do. But in my opinion it is better to play everyone every 2 years than waiting 6 years to see everyone.

This would be once every 3 years, twice every 6. Slightly “better” than twice every 7, which divisions would necessitate, but a lot easier to schedule.

Sun Belt teams don’t want to play each other once every 2 years, twice every 4.

(05-25-2022 12:10 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be okay if the SB eliminated divisions, yet continued to schedule as though they existed. By that, I mean that I want 6 of the 8 opponents for my school to be against teams that will be in the East division, but if the top two teams are both from the same division, they should be in the championship game.

If the league went divisionless where schools had three annual rivals played five for two years and the remaining five for the next two years, that would defeat a major purpose of the expansion.

I would be concerned if the upcoming scheduling model were replaced where eastern schools are played less often and western schools more often, we would circle back aroumd to the clamoring for the mythical east coast G5 league completely separate from the Sun Belt West.

Eastern schools want to play eastern schools, and Western schools want to play western schools. That's what they're getting, all while maintaining under one conference umbrella. Pretty much everyone is thrilled about it. The league has to be careful how it approaches things.

I can see the merit in the conference keeping divisions even though I am generally for getting rid of them. I don't think a conference with 14 teams though it would work great to schedule like divisions, but not have them though. There is going to be scheduling imbalances in any set-up, but having the same group of 7 teams miss most the other group of 7 teams every year could potentially be a bigger deal than other scheduling issues over a longer period.

Looks like the SEC will climb aboard the no-division bandwagon after UT and OU join.

Quote:The SEC has zeroed in on two conference scheduling models for 2025 and beyond, including a nine-game league schedule, commissioner Greg Sankey confirmed Tuesday evening. That means divisions are almost certainly going away, as expected, and a decision could be announced as soon as this week.

The nine-game model, with each team having three permanent opponents, remains favored by many in the conference because it would keep traditional rivalries while still allowing for teams to face every other SEC team at least twice every four years.

The eight-game model, with teams only having one permanent conference opponent, is favored by some schools that prefer playing an extra nonconference game.

Quote:“We’ve focused more on the single-division model,” Sankey said. “But until we’re done you never know.”

https://theathletic.com/news/future-sec-...aecKd8GZc/

(05-31-2022 09:51 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Interesting. I assume 4 of the no votes against 9 games were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. I would wager OU and UT would be opposed as well. Not sure about the other 2 no's. Missouri, perhaps? Texas A&M since they were opposed to the expansion in the first place?

(05-31-2022 09:51 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

The Tiebreaker will be ESPN

Maybe half of the SEC could play 9 games and the other half 8 plus a P5 rival (UF/FSU, UGA/GT, UK/UL, SC/Clemson, OU/OSU, etc.). The ones playing 9 SEC games would just count one as a non-conference game, but it would count toward any media contracts. Although then they'd presumably want a larger piece of the pie, understandably.

But yeah, if ESPN is the decider, it'll be 9 games for all 16 schools.

If the commissioner is smart, he'll just kick this issue to their next meeting and see if anyone has changed their mind in the interim.

It would be bad management to force the issue when the split is exactly even and there is no urgency to decide it.

If they only play 8 I'm not sure how they cycle through all the teams? 3+6+6 is more clean. If it's 3+5+5, you miss two teams every two years. It's only worth it if there are OOC matchups the SEC absolutely has to keep on the schedule. Obviously FLa, USC, UGa, UK have that. But who in the west has that? Unless Mizzou KU or Bedlam remains a thing, there is no impetus for removing a 9th SEC game. You need to generate a made for TV game regardless, and I only provide context with respect to rivalry weekend. However, same is applicable to all weeks in the season.

(06-01-2022 04:01 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If they only play 8 I'm not sure how they cycle through all the teams? 3+6+6 is more clean. If it's 3+5+5, you miss two teams every two years. It's only worth it if there are OOC matchups the SEC absolutely has to keep on the schedule. Obviously FLa, USC, UGa, UK have that. But who in the west has that? Unless Mizzou KU or Bedlam remains a thing, there is no impetus for removing a 9th SEC game. You need to generate a made for TV game regardless, and I only provide context with respect to rivalry weekend. However, same is applicable to all weeks in the season.

You just cycle every three years instead of every two, you even get a 4th rival if you do that. Heck, that 4th rival can be sold to ESPN and you can get the same best-on-best content with 8 as you can get with 9. Unless Ole Miss-South Carolina is really worth that much more than Ole Miss-Southern Miss, I’m still not convinced 9 is an eventuality.

(06-01-2022 04:52 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 04:01 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If they only play 8 I'm not sure how they cycle through all the teams? 3+6+6 is more clean. If it's 3+5+5, you miss two teams every two years. It's only worth it if there are OOC matchups the SEC absolutely has to keep on the schedule. Obviously FLa, USC, UGa, UK have that. But who in the west has that? Unless Mizzou KU or Bedlam remains a thing, there is no impetus for removing a 9th SEC game. You need to generate a made for TV game regardless, and I only provide context with respect to rivalry weekend. However, same is applicable to all weeks in the season.

You just cycle every three years instead of every two, you even get a 4th rival if you do that. Heck, that 4th rival can be sold to ESPN and you can get the same best-on-best content with 8 as you can get with 9. Unless Ole Miss-South Carolina is really worth that much more than Ole Miss-Southern Miss, I’m still not convinced 9 is an eventuality.

Yeah but you may need that 9th game for tie breaking purposes. What if there is no H2H and three 11-1 teams are tied (once in a lifetime but possible)? Or the much more likely scenario of 3x 11-1 where one school has a H2H (perhaps a home win for that matter), but only over 1/2 schools. There is no way to break that tie aside from some type of strength of victory or ranking to eliminate 1/3 schools. It's just ugly with a 3-5-5. Just stick to SEC games. You can let schools keep one OOC rival, and then you just have to schedule another G5/P5. Or FCS/G5 if schools want to lighten their load. I also never understood the concept of an all-SEC non-conference game, although that may make sense if divisions were to remain in place. With 16 teams, you go 3+6+6.

(05-31-2022 10:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 09:51 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Interesting. I assume 4 of the no votes against 9 games were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. I would wager OU and UT would be opposed as well. Not sure about the other 2 no's. Missouri, perhaps? Texas A&M since they were opposed to the expansion in the first place?

This is a major reason why I think if there's further expansion those 4 programs will majorly influence who would be brought in. I believe the state of South Carolina actually mandates the SC-Clemson game. That really complicates matters over there. Mizzou probably wouldn't care unless they pine to renew with Kansas or want more games again Midwestern Big Ten teams.

With NIL and pay-per-play I just don't see the logic of staying at 8 games anymore. The competition outside the SEC and P5 would be even more lopsided than now. So may as well get that 9th SEC game.

(06-01-2022 09:02 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  With NIL and pay-per-play I just don't see the logic of staying at 8 games anymore. The competition outside the SEC and P5 would be even more lopsided than now. So may as well get that 9th SEC game.

If you're Vanderbilt or Arkansas or South Carolina the logic is clear.

If you're Florida or LSU or UT the logic is another home game.

If you're just a college football fan you probably have to weigh theoretically "better" games vs. more interconnectivity with 4 OOC games.

Similar for tv partners - another SEC game between say LSU and Missouri is better than LSU playing SLU and Missouri playing Arkansas State, but in the later case you're getting two games instead of one. So, is that SEC game worth twice as much as whatever OOC situation you'd get instead? Or 1.5 as much if we're talking about an actual one-for-one series instead of just replacing the So-Con challenge week? If you're a western team without the big in-state AAC rival like Clemson, GT, Louisville, FSU you get to keep your So-Con Challenge or Sunbelt game or whatever, but if you have a rival you want to play who is roughly a peer and will want a home game (and be a more or less challenging game) then you very much want to stick with 8.

(06-01-2022 09:33 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 09:02 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  With NIL and pay-per-play I just don't see the logic of staying at 8 games anymore. The competition outside the SEC and P5 would be even more lopsided than now. So may as well get that 9th SEC game.

If you're Vanderbilt or Arkansas or South Carolina the logic is clear.

If you're Florida or LSU or UT the logic is another home game.

If you're just a college football fan you probably have to weigh theoretically "better" games vs. more interconnectivity with 4 OOC games.

Similar for tv partners - another SEC game between say LSU and Missouri is better than LSU playing SLU and Missouri playing Arkansas State, but in the later case you're getting two games instead of one. So, is that SEC game worth twice as much as whatever OOC situation you'd get instead? Or 1.5 as much if we're talking about an actual one-for-one series instead of just replacing the So-Con challenge week? If you're a western team without the big in-state AAC rival like Clemson, GT, Louisville, FSU you get to keep your So-Con Challenge or Sunbelt game or whatever, but if you have a rival you want to play who is roughly a peer and will want a home game (and be a more or less challenging game) then you very much want to stick with 8.

And, yet, half of the "new" SEC voted for that 9th game. Even if the money isn't that much greater perhaps those 8 believe that there would be more games where they would be more evenly matched than not. Perhaps Texas would prefer playing games versus Kentucky and South Carolina over playing the likes of Houston or Baylor. Renewing the TAMU game removes much of the pressure from within the state. LSU doesn't feel the need to elevate the likes of Tulane or Monroe or Lafayette. Same with Tennessee with Memphis. It's those four states where the rivalry games are either mandated or are extremely important to those programs is where the complications lie.

Now should playoff expansion actually happen the incentive to stay at 8 games may be even less with the opening of more at-large spots.

(06-01-2022 10:38 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 09:33 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 09:02 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  With NIL and pay-per-play I just don't see the logic of staying at 8 games anymore. The competition outside the SEC and P5 would be even more lopsided than now. So may as well get that 9th SEC game.

If you're Vanderbilt or Arkansas or South Carolina the logic is clear.

If you're Florida or LSU or UT the logic is another home game.

If you're just a college football fan you probably have to weigh theoretically "better" games vs. more interconnectivity with 4 OOC games.

Similar for tv partners - another SEC game between say LSU and Missouri is better than LSU playing SLU and Missouri playing Arkansas State, but in the later case you're getting two games instead of one. So, is that SEC game worth twice as much as whatever OOC situation you'd get instead? Or 1.5 as much if we're talking about an actual one-for-one series instead of just replacing the So-Con challenge week? If you're a western team without the big in-state AAC rival like Clemson, GT, Louisville, FSU you get to keep your So-Con Challenge or Sunbelt game or whatever, but if you have a rival you want to play who is roughly a peer and will want a home game (and be a more or less challenging game) then you very much want to stick with 8.

And, yet, half of the "new" SEC voted for that 9th game. Even if the money isn't that much greater perhaps those 8 believe that there would be more games where they would be more evenly matched than not. Perhaps Texas would prefer playing games versus Kentucky and South Carolina over playing the likes of Houston or Baylor. Renewing the TAMU game removes much of the pressure from within the state. LSU doesn't feel the need to elevate the likes of Tulane or Monroe or Lafayette. Same with Tennessee with Memphis. It's those four states where the rivalry games are either mandated or are extremely important to those programs is where the complications lie.

Now should playoff expansion actually happen the incentive to stay at 8 games may be even less with the opening of more at-large spots.

Sure. Half want 9 and half want 8.

But you said you didn't see the logic, and there is the logic.

(05-31-2022 10:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Interesting. I assume 4 of the no votes against 9 games were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. I would wager OU and UT would be opposed as well. Not sure about the other 2 no's. Missouri, perhaps? Texas A&M since they were opposed to the expansion in the first place?

Agreed on the first 6 of those.

Missouri might want 9 conference games to get the extra SEC game at home every year. They don't have overwhelming pressure to contend, so it doesn't matter as much if the extra SEC game makes the schedule more challenging.

Agreed that TAMU would want to stay at 8. They have a lot of pressure to max their win total, and playing 8 conference games makes that easier. For the same reason, I'll guess the 8th vote for 8 is LSU.

(06-01-2022 11:14 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 10:37 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Interesting. I assume 4 of the no votes against 9 games were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina. I would wager OU and UT would be opposed as well. Not sure about the other 2 no's. Missouri, perhaps? Texas A&M since they were opposed to the expansion in the first place?

Agreed on the first 6 of those.

Missouri might want 9 conference games to get the extra SEC game at home every year. Wouldn't it be every other year?They don't have overwhelming pressure to contend, so it doesn't matter as much if the extra SEC game makes the schedule more challenging.

Agreed that TAMU would want to stay at 8. They have a lot of pressure to max their win total, and playing 8 conference games makes that easier. For the same reason, I'll guess the 8th vote for 8 is LSU.

Once the SEC abandons divisions, which will probably come pretty soon, I think everyone else who already hasn't will to.

Follow the leader.